Imminent Pandemic Standby Messages (cont.)
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #13
Sources preaching pandemic preparedness have tended to oversell hand-washing. Official websites and brochures often state in one place that “hand-washing is one of the most effective ways to reduce flu transmission”; someplace else they point out that “droplets are the main route of flu transmission.”
We’re not worried that overselling hand-washing will lead to a false sense of security, creating an overconfident public that won’t bother with more difficult precautions. We’re worried that people will smell a rat. We’re worried that people will react to the mismatch between the experts’ urgent pandemic warnings and their paeans to hand-washing by losing confidence in both the experts and the hand-washing. It’s just not credible to sound like Cassandra one moment, talking about the coming pandemic that may disrupt normal life for months, and then to sound like Pollyanna (or mommy) the next moment, talking about the wonders of hand hygiene.
It’s also worth noting that officials and experts mostly ignore the problem of recontamination after hand-washing. How many campaigns have there been for changing public washroom faucets and doorknobs so they can be operated without using your hands?
Why do sources end up sounding more enthusiastic about hand-washing than the available data justify? Partly because they really want to get people to wash their hands frequently. And partly, we think, because they feel terrible about not having better solutions to offer. Lacking a silver bullet (such as an effective vaccine), they feel a need to oversell what they have.
This is natural but all too likely to backfire. People are probably likelier to end up deeply committed to hand-washing if you admit “it’s not much but it’s better than nothing” than if you pretend it’s a panacea.
At a pandemic communication seminar in Malaysia, Jody urged health officials to be more candid that hand-washing is strongly recommended not because it’s perfect but because it’s (almost) all we’ve got. When they tried out their revised messages on a test audience of hotel employees, the employees expressed a lot of interest in learning how, and how often, to wash their hands. “We must have oversold it,” Jody’s students concluded. “Ask them,” she advised. “Oh, no,” the hoteliers replied. “We get it that hand-washing isn’t a cure-all. But at least it’s something we can do, and we want to do it right.”
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #14
The very same sources who have oversold hand-washing have often refused to recommend facemasks at all, except for healthcare professionals. When asked why, they sometimes say they’re worried that wearing a mask, especially a surgical mask, will give people a false sense of security – an objection they never voice with respect to hand-washing. During the SARS outbreaks, paradoxically, officials in Toronto opposed mask-wearing on the opposite grounds; they thought seeing other people in masks would be unduly scary to the public.
Some experts also argue, accurately, that masks aren’t completely effective. But of course hand-washing isn’t completely effective either. The difference between the two isn’t that hand-washing has been proved more effective than mask-wearing; it’s that hand-washing has no significant downside, while mask-wearing has several real drawbacks.
The sound risk communication response, of course, is to tell people the drawbacks and let them decide for themselves. It is understandable that officials promote readily available hand-washing more than hard-to-get and hard-to-use masks. But it makes very little sense that so many sources of pandemic information have expressed outright opposition to the public use of masks.
Part of what’s going on is competition. Both kinds of masks, but especially N-95 masks, are already in short supply. Public stockpiling competes with healthcare stockpiling, and with ordinary use in healthcare settings. Fair enough. So tell people masks are in short supply and may not be available. Don’t tell them masks won’t be useful in crowded public places – and then expect to be trusted when you explain that people can transmit the flu before they have symptoms, when you advise social distancing and voluntary self-quarantine, and when you require mask use in hospital waiting rooms.
As a possibly severe pandemic approaches, people will be desperate for ways to protect themselves and their loved ones. Knowing that there are potentially useful things you can do – that is, feeling efficacious rather than impotent – is a key to coping well in crisis situations. Busy, efficacious people can bear their fears better; people who see themselves only as victims are likelier to sink into apathy or denial. So in addition to being useful on practical grounds, it is also useful psychologically to give people things to do.
Better still: Give people choices of things to do, so they’re not just blindly following your instructions, but also thinking through how best to act. People with choices to make learn more, feel more efficacious, and follow through better on the choices they end up making.
Of course the psychological value of “things to do” doesn’t mean the experts should oversell any precaution – be it hand-washing or mask-wearing. Precautions that look likely to do more harm than good should be discouraged. But if wearing a facemask looks likely to do more good than harm, it should be encouraged, with appropriate attention to its downsides.
This isn’t just about masks. It is about people’s attitudes as they face a potentially severe pandemic – and our attitudes as we prepare to guide them through it. It’s a serious mistake for authorities to head into hard times believing that they should recommend only perfect precautions with no disadvantages. And it’s a serious mistake for authorities to head into hard times believing that all precautions should be either forbidden or required, and that all decisions should be made by professionals. We will need people to be (and feel) informed and self-reliant, able to choose their own precautions after hearing our advice. And we will need people to accept that imperfect precautions are all we’ve got. (That will include the eventual, longed-for, imperfect vaccine.)
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #15
Some experts and officials have been shouting for years about the possible infrastructure impacts of a severe pandemic. Others have been reluctant to deliver such a terrifying message. Most of the public has so far managed not to hear it or not to believe it. They will be shocked and angry to learn it. (If you’re one of the sources who tried to warn them, it won’t help anything to remind them of that now.)
So should impending shortages be a major message when a pandemic is imminent, and people are at last paying close, appropriately fearful attention? Many officials will say it shouldn’t. They’ll argue that this message is too scary, and too late, and maybe unnecessary since we’re not sure the shortages will actually materialize.
We think it’s a crucial message. In some cases there will be practical last-minute steps people can take to prepare for shortages. At the very least they can start conserving what they have.
More importantly, people need time to get shocked, angry, frightened, and depressed – and get over it and ready to cope – before the pandemic arrives. This is called an “adjustment reaction.” Like the stages of grief, the stages of crisis response are increasingly well-established, and one of the things we know is that after hearing about a terrifying new risk, people need to get through a series of emotional shocks – we sometimes call them “oh-my-God moments” – before they are ready to soldier on. Going through these shocks long before the pandemic would have been better than going through them just days before the pandemic. But days before the pandemic is better than after the pandemic begins.
Another reason for pre-pandemic and pandemic-onset candor: When the shortages start happening, the sources who warned they were coming will gain credibility (even though people will be mad), while sources who blindsided the public (by omission or over-optimism) will rightly be judged untrustworthy.
It’s not as if this knowledge will be long in coming. Even if you say nothing about potential shortages, enough people will anticipate the worst to produce an immediate pre-pandemic run on supermarkets, hardware stores, drugstores, gas stations, banks, etc. You don’t have any good choices – only a dilemma you cannot escape. If you warn of shortages, you’ll be accused of contributing to panic buying. If you don’t warn of shortages, people will rush to the stores anyway, and you will be seen as an unreliable source. Warn of shortages. And share that communication dilemma with the public.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #16
The stockpiling message is most appropriate before the period contemplated in this column – in other words, right now – while there’s still no reason to think a pandemic is imminent, while preparedness is still abstract in most people’s minds, while stockpiling can be spread out over weeks and months (if we stay lucky), and while there’s probably ample time to resupply. Did you cringe when you read the paragraph telling people to rush to the store in pre-pandemic desperation? Then put more effort into getting them to build up their stockpiles now instead!
We’re more than a little nervous about recommending sudden stockpiling in Communication Phase 4. If everyone rushes out to the market at the same time, the message is likely to worsen the very shortages the messengers were trying to help people prepare for. But whatever sources say or don’t say, millions of people will rush out to the market at the same time. It’s better to affirm and guide people’s urge to stockpile than to ignore it. And shortages when a pandemic looks imminent are preferable to shortages after the pandemic has arrived. There’s reason to hope that manufacturing and transport won’t be too badly affected yet; there may be enough time and resources to partially replenish the shelves after a Communication Phase 4 run on the markets.
The last paragraph of the message shares this communication dilemma. It tells people there is internal debate over whether to recommend stockpiling, and it tells them why. This is grounded in our crisis communication advice to share dilemmas and let opinion diversity show. We believe it is never a good idea to make a difficult, angst-ridden, hotly debated decision sound like a no-brainer. But we must concede that this advice is itself hotly debated, especially our dissent from the conventional wisdom to “speak with one voice” in a crisis. (See Peter’s July 2006 column, “‘Speak with One Voice’ – Why I Disagree.”)
It will certainly be controversial to urge people to stockpile in Communication Phase 4. It will be especially controversial to urge them to stockpile supplies that are directly relevant to the pandemic, such as antiviral medications and facemasks.
Though many are opposed to the advice, we are very comfortable advising people to buy Tamiflu and masks now, during WHO’s Phase 3. We’ve been in Phase 3 (or its predecessor) since 1997; as long as we stay in Phase 3, it seems fair to assume that there will be time to cope with shortages induced by public stockpiling. But once a pandemic is imminent, people will be competing for these potentially life-saving supplies – not just with each other but also with healthcare professionals and those in charge of keeping society’s infrastructure running.
If the supplies will be as limited then as many experts think they will be, it may make sense to centralize or nationalize what’s available rather than letting it go on a first-come first-served basis. If this becomes the policy, there will need to be messages that explain it and justify it, and messages that acknowledge the inevitable fear, resentment, and outrage it will cause.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #17
We are consistently surprised that most pandemic planners we talk with are paying so little attention to home healthcare. Officials are terribly worried about how hospitals and other health facilities will cope with the overload, but shockingly little effort is going into reducing that overload by preparing people to care for their loved ones at home. Yet there is a good case to be made that hospitals – especially grossly overloaded hospitals with inadequate supplies and staff – will have very little they can do for flu patients that can’t be done more safely and more comfortably at home.
In our opinion, this includes the administration of antivirals like Tamiflu (if the pandemic virus is susceptible to that drug). Antiviral medications are believed to work best if given very soon after the onset of symptoms. So society is in a little-discussed Catch-22 with respect to antivirals. We want patients to avoid going to the hospital if at all possible; certainly we don’t want them heading for the hospital unless their symptoms are severe. That means by the time they get there it may be too late to give them Tamiflu. But most authorities oppose home stockpiling of Tamiflu, insisting that it’s better for public health authorities to dispense it when it’s needed … presumably at the hospital.
As production of these drugs increases, a thought-through home healthcare policy should include home stockpiling of antivirals. And the arguments conventionally advanced against home stockpiling, many of which are patronizing and even dishonest, should be abandoned. (See our January 2006 column on “The Dilemma of Personal Tamiflu Stockpiling.”) We see some encouraging movement in this direction. A number of corporations, for example, are not just purchasing Tamiflu for their employees but also distributing the supply now so employees have it at home (along with the other just-in-case medicines that their doctors trust them to use wisely – asthma inhalers, emergency bee-sting kits, angina pills, etc.).
Our support for home antiviral stockpiling is a policy opinion and a medical opinion – outside our field. But it is based largely on research showing that the public is much wiser during emergencies (and the run-up to emergencies) than most officials believe. Sixty years of disaster research is mostly on our side. The pandemic communication implication: Treat the public like grown-ups.
A thought-through home healthcare policy should also include a cadre of visiting nurses ready to help patients’ families learn how to take care of them properly; and a cadre of delivery services ready to provide food and other essentials, helping people stay home during the period when they’re likeliest to be infectious.
Like many of these messages, the homecare message is better delivered way before a pandemic than right before a pandemic. It’s a lot easier to equip a home for flu care now than it will be during Communication Phase 4. But let’s face it: Most citizens are still unexcited about pandemic preparedness. They figure they’ll make do with just-in-time pandemic preparedness. It would be a huge service if governments, community organizations, schools, and retailers created their own stockpiles of prepackaged influenza homecare kits, ready to distribute or sell when the public finally gets interested.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #18
“Call this number now….” As of this moment there are only a few such numbers to call. Every time we do a seminar or consultation on pandemic risk communication, we harangue the group about the need for a Pandemic Survivor Volunteer Corps. Responses range from skepticism (“but what about liability?”) to puzzled support and embarrassed silence (“I wonder why we never thought of that ourselves”). But we haven’t seen a lot of follow-through.
Volunteer recruitment has not been a top pandemic preparedness priority. There are many programs to recruit and organize volunteer professionals – retired doctors and nurses, for example. But there has been very little effort to recruit and organize ordinary citizens – especially those who (by the luck of the draw) will end up getting the flu and then recovering. Even companies have been slow to develop registries of employees whose skills (or even just their availability) will be invaluable if they turn out to be pandemic survivors.
Though there are signs that this may be changing, volunteer skills registries are still scarce. Such registries – a crucial tool for critical infrastructure preparedness – can be compiled by local governments, or by schools, faith-based organizations, and community service groups.
There are of course some real problems to be solved, including liability law. But the biggest barrier to a Pandemic Survivor Volunteer Corps is attitude. Many health professionals, for example, are ambivalent at best about volunteers. They see their jobs as requiring proper professional training and credentials, and are reluctant to cede it to amateurs, even under crisis conditions. Emergency response professionals, meanwhile, have been taught that centralized command-and-control is essential to an effective response. (Katrina made them feel this all the more.) So they’re ambivalent about volunteers too.
In addition to attitude, some of the problem is a failure of imagination – and perhaps some understandable denial. Pandemic or not, ordinary citizens really can’t pinch-hit for medical and emergency response professionals. But in a severe pandemic, volunteers will be desperately needed for less highly skilled tasks as well. Medical and emergency response professionals seem to lose track of this crucial distinction.
These professionals all know (and say) that a severe pandemic will swamp their ability to cope. They know (and say) that to get through the pandemic ordinary citizens will have to help themselves and their neighbors. If volunteer networks spring up on their own, the professionals will be grateful for the lightened load. But we have found very few pandemic professionals interested in organizing nonprofessional volunteers.
In fairness, it’s not clear that the general public is all that interested in volunteering anyway – yet. Pandemic awareness is still low. So maybe just-in-time volunteer recruitment efforts during Communication Phase 4 are actually our best bet.
As a piece of risk communication, you can’t do better than asking people to think about joining a Pandemic Survivor Volunteer Corps. It is asking them to imagine this scenario:
- A pandemic happens.
- You get the disease.
- You recover.
- You want to help.
This is the ideal frame of mind with which to contemplate pandemic preparedness – whether it’s now or when a pandemic starts to look imminent.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #19
Some organizations have already devoted a lot of effort to what we call “business discontinuity planning” – getting ready to abandon routine work and regroup for essential tasks only. Others haven’t yet. But even the ones that have taken discontinuity planning seriously have tended to do so quietly, without involving much of their workforce. That will need to change fast (if it hasn’t already) when a pandemic looks imminent.
There are three reasons to ask employees what they do that’s essential, and what they know how to do that’s essential:
- The first reason is because we will need their counsel. There are pieces of the answer to this question that employees know a lot better than management.
- The second reason is because we will need their buy-in. Employees need to know that management is reorganizing for business discontinuity. They should already be in the loop when they’re asked to do some urgent cross-training, for example. They’re a lot likelier to show up for work during a severe pandemic if they have a sense of mission about their pandemic crisis duty station than if they picture themselves risking their lives to do their routine jobs.
- The third reason may be the most important: We will need their determination. Crisis managers know (and so does the military) that people cope much better with their fears when they’re busy – when they have things to do and things to decide in order to help themselves and others get through the crisis. The psychology catchphrase for this is: “Action binds anxiety.” (See Peter’s 2001 column on the anthrax attacks.) When a pandemic looks imminent, people will be at great risk of seeing themselves as potential victims – and only that. Part of the answer is offering them ways they can help themselves, and asking them to suggest additional ways. The rest of the answer is offering them ways they can help others, and asking them to suggest additional ways. In crisis situations, officials too often regale the public with long lists of supposedly reassuring official activities – “we’re doing this and this and this and this” – without making an all-out effort to involve the public as well. One key to getting through a severe pandemic (or any crisis) is to encourage an active rather than a passive public.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #20
This isn’t a terribly important message, which is why we haven’t developed it at any length – and why we put it near the end of the list, in opposition to all the natural tendencies of government officials.
Still, all those other messages about what individuals and households and civic groups and businesses should do will inevitably lead people to wonder whether the government is shouldering its share of the load. It is worthwhile to anticipate this question, validate it, and answer it.
Regardless of this pandemic messaging advice, we do realize that national governments will probably talk first (and at length) about what they are doing. We hope they will get through their “what we are doing” messages as quickly as possible. What matters most is telling people candidly how alarming the situation is, what is likely to happen in the coming weeks, and what they can do for themselves and their communities.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #21
We’re more worried about the second half of the message, warning against overreaction. There is real concern among pandemic planning experts that public overreaction in the run-up to a pandemic may lead to a set of self-fulfilling prophesies. People’s fear of shortages can cause shortages. People’s worries about a stock market collapse can collapse the market. And these things can happen even if the pandemic threat dissipates or the pandemic turns out mild.
But ignoring these concerns won’t reduce the risk. The best option, we think, is to make people aware of the risk – to tell them that overreacting is as much a danger as underreacting when a pandemic looks imminent. We’re not at all confident that will work. But we’re very confident nothing else will. In particular, glib over-reassurance about factors that are beyond anyone’s control (like a market crash) will damage credibility without actually reassuring anybody.
There is also a risk of similar governmental overreactions. Closing borders, for example, won’t stop a pandemic – but it will worsen the problem of supply shortages. Yet many experts predict that national governments will close their borders anyhow, knowing it will do more harm than good, simply to be able to say they tried, they did what they could, they didn’t just stand idly by. It might be worth adding a message urging people to urge the government not to overreact.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #22
Why have a Communication Phase 4 message about riots and panics? Partly because civil disorder is a real possibility, and partly because the prospect of civil disorder will inevitably be on people’s minds. (Memories of televised images from Hurricane Katrina will ensure that this is so – but it would be so anyway.) It is always good crisis communication to get unspoken concerns onto the table, where they can be ventilated, shared, addressed, and put into perspective.
Like the public, government officials usually overestimate the probability of civil disorder during crises, and often perceive the public’s rational precautionary behavior as “panic.” In response to these expectations and misperceptions, officials frequently make over-reassuring statements, withhold alarming information, suppress freedom (declaring martial law, for example), and order people – often with ill-disguised contempt – not to panic. Ironically, these responses increase the probability of civil disorder. One reason we want authorities to keep telling the public that riots and panics will probably be rare is to keep reminding the authorities themselves that riots and panics will probably be rare.
Notice that we have written the message in a way that wraps the reassuring news in warnings about the need for vigilance. This is a crisis communication strategy worth mastering. People in crisis situations expect the authorities to try to over-reassure them, and their response to one-sided, reassuring messages is often skeptical; they get on the other side of the seesaw and actually become more alarmed instead. Paradoxically, the reassurances can “get in” better if they are surrounded by expressions of concern. (See “Crisis Communication: How To Reassure Without Over-Reassuring.”)
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #23
Yeah, okay, maybe it’s a pipedream to expect any official source to articulate these principles. But we believe they are all solid crisis communication principles:
- aim for total candor;
- err on the alarming side;
- acknowledge uncertainty;
- share dilemmas;
- warn people about changes in policy;
- let opinion diversity show; and
- acknowledge people’s existing beliefs (including the rumors they may have heard already).
Many of the messages in this column embed these principles already. What’s different about #23 is that it articulates the principles explicitly. There are two good reasons for doing this.
The first reason is to help officials stay true to the principles. Telling the public that you’re going to be candid and acknowledge uncertainty doesn’t guarantee that you really will – but it helps.
The second reason is to alert the public to what’s coming. This is a crisis communication principle too; the term-of-art is “anticipatory guidance,” but we usually call it telling people what to expect. Being candid means sounding more pessimistic and more uncertain than the public is used to hearing from official sources; it means pointing out uncertainties and disagreements and course changes instead of trying to hide them. If you’re going to behave so uncharacteristically, you should warn the public to expect it.
Anticipatory guidance (telling people what to expect) is one of the core tasks during Communication Phase 4. The goal of most of the messages on this list is to help people know what to expect in the pandemic that may be starting. The goal of this particular message is to help them know what to expect from your communications.
They really do need to know that. They need to know that you’re not sugarcoating the message. They need to know that everything you’re telling them about the pandemic is subject to change as you learn more. They need to know that there will be disagreements within your agency and between agencies. They need to know that there will be rumors and conflicting information. The sooner they figure these things out, the better you will be able to help guide them through the hard times to come.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #24
This really shouldn’t be a separate message. It should be sprinkled through all the messages. What’s it like to be told to stay home with the flu because there’s no room at the hospital? What’s it like to take over a crucial job because the person who knows it best is too sick to work? What’s it like to bury a child or a spouse without a funeral because public gatherings are banned?
This kind of information is essential for emotional rehearsal, so people get through some of the shock – the adjustment reaction – before the pandemic arrives. The two best sources are historical accounts from the 1918 pandemic and well-informed what-if scenarios about the next one.
Even more than policy information, this sort of narrative information may turn out mistaken. So much is impossible to predict! What will be the symptoms of the next pandemic influenza? What will be the typical course of the disease? We know the answers for 1918. We know the answers for those who contracted bird flu from the pre-pandemic H5N1 virus. During Communication Phase 4, we will start to know the answers for the first victims of the emerging pandemic strain.
Of course we should make these what-if narratives as accurate as we can. But even narratives that turn out wrong will help people prepare emotionally in ways that policy abstractions and concrete logistical recommendations simply cannot match. To help people brace for the potential disaster to come, the narratives have to be vivid, they have to be realistic, and they have to be upsetting. They don’t have to turn out right.
Imminent Pandemic Standby Message #25
There’s no message for #25 – just this commentary. We’re out of steam.
But the public won’t be out of questions.
It is worthwhile – and not especially difficult – to brainstorm lists of questions people are likely to ask when a pandemic is imminent.
At least one such list has been published. In October 2006, the CDC sponsored a one-day workshop entitled “Pandemic Influenza – Past, Present, Future: Communicating Today Based on the Lessons from the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic.” The workshop proceedings includes an appendix entitled “Probable Stakeholder Concerns List.” It is in fact a list of questions stakeholders are likely to be asking. Developed by workshop participants, the list is organized by scenarios.
According to the CDC’s Alan Janssen, work is ongoing to develop standby answers to the questions on this list, then to message-test the answers and put them through the government’s clearance process. Janssen wrote Jody in January 2007: “I hope to have all messages ‘in the can’ by late summer.”
This will be an important step forward in standby pandemic messaging. What the metamessaging will be like remains to be seen.
The CDC’s Scenario 3b – “Asian Influenza Outbreak in People – There are now hundreds of current, confirmed cases of a new influenza virus in an Asian country” – is described as corresponding to WHO Phase 6. But the 3b question list is well worth looking at with Phases 4 and 5 in mind. Here it is:
|3-1.||Would you describe the situation as under control?|
|3-2.||How worried should people be?|
|3-3.||What can we expect next?|
|3-4.||What should people be doing now to prepare for the worst?|
|3-5.||Can people travel from the U.S. to Asia?|
|3.6.||Will you close the borders?|
|3-7.||What is being done to keep this disease out of the U.S.?|
|3-8.||What are the symptoms of this disease?|
|3-9.||What should someone do if they think they have this disease?|
|3-10.||Is this pandemic influenza?|
|3-11.||What is being done?|
|3-12.||What do you plan to do next to address this?|
|3-13.||Who is in charge?|
|3-14.||Who else is involved in the response?|
|3-15.||Do you expect this disease to get to people in the U.S.?|
|3-16.||What will you do if someone in the U.S. is diagnosed with this disease?|
|3-17.||What is being done about vaccine development and production for this disease?|
|3-18.||How are antiviral medicines being used in the U.S. now to address this?|
|3-19.||Will the U.S. provide antiviral medicines from the U.S. stockpile to the affected countries?|
|3-20.||Could this have been prevented?|
Many of the questions on the list are questions people will be asking about what the government is doing. They deserve answers. But the list is less focused on what the rest of us should do. It does not match the mantra of U.S. HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, who says:
Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government or, for that matter, even the state government will come to their rescue at the final moment will be tragically wrong.
The messages in this column were chosen with three criteria in mind.
- First, they are the messages we think are most important for helping the public through its adjustment reaction so people are ready to cope with a pandemic.
- Second, they are the messages we think government and corporate sources are likeliest to neglect.
- And third, they are the messages we consider most likely to give rise to controversy over metamessaging – especially over how alarming and how candid it is appropriate to be when a pandemic looks imminent.
But obviously the column isn’t complete. Use our list of messages and the CDC’s list of questions as starting points. Then add messages that are suggested by your thinking, your reading, your colleagues, and above all your stakeholders and publics.
Copyright © 2007 by Peter M. Sandman and Jody Lanard